Supreme court decides you have no right to prove your innocence

Damocles said:
That would be regardless of the law, however standards of the time is applied as well as precedent.

If the state was found to have used faulty evidence, even now, they would get that kind ruling by courts. It appears as if the system has protected itself. Did they get their due process? Of course they did, however nowadays new exonerating evidence may be available and the only right thing to do would be to test when it is available, asked for, and paid for.

If the evidence is actually faulty we may have many people in prison that should never have been there, and it is the only moral course to find out. Worrying that we might find out that many people should never have been convicted is not much of a worry to me, and the tests are cheaper if it turns out the state needs to pay than it is to keep them in prison for another year. The right thing to do is to ensure their convictions by allowing them access to tests they pay for. I would even make it so that if it exonerated them it would be repaid by the state. It is far, far cheaper than keeping them in prison for any longer.

There are several tests that are this inaccurate that have been used in the past. Hair matching is one of them, this crappy shotgun style "DNA" test that they used to use is another. Had he brought it to court and it showed he was one of the 16% of black men it could have been, it certainly wouldn't have exonerated him. Nowadays it is accurate to 1 in a billion... sometimes much higher. That is far better.
Click to expand...


Then how about this:
He takes the test and if it proves he did it, then he forfeits his life for the crime.
 
Last edited:
After reading all this waa-waa back and forth, it amazes me that no one's figrured out that he can take the DNA test.

Get some woman to claim that he's the father of her baby, a DNA test is given, and then the Lawyer can have the test that he wants done.

Why the hell doesn't the lawyer just get the DNA and have the test done.

There's any number of ways that this could be accomplished; but this is looking like nothing more then a last ditch effort for grandstanding.
 
tinfoil said:
IT WAS FUCKING AVAILABLE. We can't help that the case was 15 years ago. If every time there's an advancement in DNA technology, do we need to retest every inmate even if they're conviction had not used DNA to convict?
Click to expand...
The current test was not available, the test at that time would implicate 16% of all the black men. That is not an accurate test. It is pretensive to ignore the difference in the current technology which would implicate one person with a 1 in a billion, sometimes up into the trillions of people, and that test which would implicate 16% of all black men.

And again for the slow. In cases where DNA tests are possible, my system would allow those who wanted to pay for their tests to test, only if it exonerated them would the state pick up the tab.

What way would you be hurt if somebody was exonerated through a test they paid for originally and we picked up that tab rather than the tab to keep them in prison for a few more years? And what way would it harm you if they paid for a test that didn't exonerate them (which we would not pay for)? The answer is none. There is no way that this would harm you, it would save you money and increase the liberties that we pride ourselves on.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Then how about this:
He takes the test and if it proves he did it, then he forfeits his life for the crime.
Click to expand...
Which would be fine, if he did indeed take a test that implicated him in the crime.

Point: People who were guilty would be unlikely to want to waste their own money on such a test. If a .org wanted to pay for it, and did, they would not be reimbursed unless the person was exonerated.

The reality is in such a system, only those who were truly innocent would have any real incentive to spend money to prove it.
 
Damocles said:
The current test was not available, the test at that time would implicate 16% of all the black men. That is not an accurate test. It is pretensive to ignore the difference in the current technology which would implicate one person with a 1 in a billion, sometimes up into the trillions of people, and that test which would implicate 16% of all black men.

And again for the slow. In cases where DNA tests are possible, my system would allow those who wanted to pay for their tests to test, only if it exonerated them would the state pick up the tab.

What way would you be hurt if somebody was exonerated through a test they paid for originally and we picked up that tab rather than the tab to keep them in prison for a few more years? And what way would it harm you if they paid for a test that didn't exonerate them (which we would not pay for)? The answer is none. There is no way that this would harm you, it would save you money and increase the liberties that we pride ourselves on.
Click to expand...

you simply refuse to acknowledge the facts in this case. what a joke
 
tinfoil said:
you simply refuse to acknowledge the facts in this case. what a joke
Click to expand...
You simply refuse to acknowledge that the facts in this case are not salient in my position on this idea.

I understand the facts in this case and why he was denied. I then said (new idea here), "I would write a law that did 'this'" so that this wouldn't be an issue...

You have an incapacity to further a conversation once you have stuck your brain on one gear. Learn to shift as in the real world, as well as on this board, conversations further themselves once people bring in new ideas.

Now can you answer the questions?

What would the real cost to you be if we allowed them to pay for their own tests and only if they were exonerated would we pick up the tab?

What would the cost be to you if the test did not exonerate them and we would not reimburse them?

And lastly what would the cost be to you if innocent people were set free?

Bonus question: What is the cost to the nation if innocents are not set free, regardless?
 
Damocles said:
You simply refuse to acknowledge that the facts in this case are not salient in my position on this idea.

I understand the facts in this case and why he was denied. I then said (new idea here), "I would write a law that did 'this'" so that this wouldn't be an issue...

You have an incapacity to further a conversation once you have stuck your brain on one gear. Learn to shift as in the real world, as well as on this board, conversations further themselves once people bring in new ideas.

Now can you answer the questions?

What would the real cost to you be if we allowed them to pay for their own tests and only if they were exonerated would we pick up the tab?

What would the cost be to you if the test did not exonerate them and we would not reimburse them?

And lastly what would the cost be to you if innocent people were set free?

Bonus question: What is the cost to the nation if innocents are not set free, regardless?
Click to expand...

Why is it important who pays for the test? If there's any doubt, and if there has been no reliable test done previously, in the name of justice the test should be done regardless of the source of funding. Your last sentence is a nuance he may not understand.
 
Quote:
Posted by Bfgrn
I understand your "fiscal conservative" view, but at a cost to taxpayers of around $35,000 annually to incarcerate a person; the test might be a "prudent" investment...

USFREEDOM911 said:
That's why I'm for the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Of COURSE you are for the the MOST expensive, least effective, barbaric UN American activity that compromises the safety of all citizens by stealing HUGE sums of taxpayer money away from prevention, rehabilitation and education...you're a right wing pea brain...

Since 1973, 133 people in 26 states have been released from death row because evidence surfaced of their innocence...much of it is DNA evidence.

You don't have to be a thinking person to conclude innocent human beings HAVE BEEN executed by the State...but for statists and authoritarian followers like you, that just satisfies your hunger for punishment of "others"...

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners."
Camus
 
belme1201 said:
Why is it important who pays for the test? If there's any doubt, and if there has been no reliable test done previously, in the name of justice the test should be done regardless of the source of funding. Your last sentence is a nuance he may not understand.
Click to expand...
It incentivizes the innocent while working opposite for those who are guilty. Who would waste their own limited resource on such tests when they know it would implicate them?

Only tests where they are exonerated would be picked up by the state.
 
Bfgrn said:
Quote:
Posted by Bfgrn
I understand your "fiscal conservative" view, but at a cost to taxpayers of around $35,000 annually to incarcerate a person; the test might be a "prudent" investment...



Of COURSE you are for the the MOST expensive, least effective, barbaric UN American activity that compromises the safety of all citizens by stealing HUGE sums of taxpayer money away from prevention, rehabilitation and education...you're a right wing pea brain...

Since 1973, 133 people in 26 states have been released from death row because evidence surfaced of their innocence...much of it is DNA evidence.

You don't have to be a thinking person to conclude innocent human beings HAVE BEEN executed by the State...but for statists and authoritarian followers like you, that just satisfies your hunger for punishment of "others"...

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners."
Camus
Click to expand...

Executing someone is not expensive, no matter what form you use.

As to your proclamation that innocent people have been executed; while it makes a nice rallying cry, not one person has been able to offer proof to support it.

:readit:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Executing someone is not expensive, no matter what form you use.

As to your proclamation that innocent people have been executed; while it makes a nice rallying cry, not one person has been able to offer proof to support it.

:readit:
Click to expand...

Recent Cost Studies

* A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000).
(December 2003 Survey by the Kansas Legislative Post Audit)

* In Tennessee, death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.
(2004 Report from Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Office of Research)

* In Maryland death penalty cases cost 3 times more than non-death penalty cases, or $3 million for a single case.
(Urban Institute, The Cost of the Death Penalty in Maryland, March 2008)

* In California the current sytem costs $137 million per year; it would cost $11.5 million for a system without the death penalty.
(California Commission for the Fair Administration of Justice, July 2008)

The greatest costs associated with the death penalty occur prior to and during trial, not in post-conviction proceedings. Even if all post-conviction proceedings (appeals) were abolished, the death penalty would still be more expensive than alternative sentences.

* Trials in which the prosecutor is seeking a death sentence have two separate and distinct phases: conviction (guilt/innocence) and sentencing. Special motions and extra time for jury selection typically precede such trials.

* More investigative costs are generally incurred in capital cases, particularly by the prosecution.

* When death penalty trials result in a verdict less than death or are reversed, taxpayers first incur all the extra costs of capital pretrial and trial proceedings and must then also pay either for the cost of incarcerating the prisoner for life or the costs of a retrial (which often leads to a life sentence).

The death penalty diverts resources from genuine crime control measures. Spending money on the death penalty system means:

* Reducing the resources available for crime prevention, mental health treatment, education and rehabilitation, meaningful victims' services, and drug treatment programs.

* Diverting it from existing components of the criminal justice system, such as prosecutions of drug crimes, domestic violence, and child abuse.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost/page.do?id=1101084
 
Damocles said:
It incentivizes the innocent while working opposite for those who are guilty. Who would waste their own limited resource on such tests when they know it would implicate them?

Only tests where they are exonerated would be picked up by the state.
Click to expand...

Somehow, placing a price tag on proving or disproving a man's innocence seems to me to be more than a bit crass and unfeeling. Surely, if a pothole can be fixed on Main Street, a man's guilt can be proven or disproven for a similar amount and for a greater benefit to the man, the public, and the justice system. Should $$$ considerations stand in the way of the dispensation of fair justice to all Americans? If a test was inadequate, faulty, or unknown at the time of a prisoner's conviction, he should have an absolute right to it in an attempt to conclusively prove his innocence or guilt. We are all better off whether it succeeds in proving his innocence or proves the finding at the trial was correct.
 
belme1201 said:
Somehow, placing a price tag on proving or disproving a man's innocence seems to me to be more than a bit crass and unfeeling. Surely, if a pothole can be fixed on Main Street, a man's guilt can be proven or disproven for a similar amount and for a greater benefit to the man, the public, and the justice system. Should $$$ considerations stand in the way of the dispensation of fair justice to all Americans? If a test was inadequate, faulty, or unknown at the time of a prisoner's conviction, he should have an absolute right to it in an attempt to conclusively prove his innocence or guilt. We are all better off whether it succeeds in proving his innocence or proves the finding at the trial was correct.
Click to expand...

I see your location...Nassau Co?
 
belme1201 said:
Somehow, placing a price tag on proving or disproving a man's innocence seems to me to be more than a bit crass and unfeeling. Surely, if a pothole can be fixed on Main Street, a man's guilt can be proven or disproven for a similar amount and for a greater benefit to the man, the public, and the justice system. Should $$$ considerations stand in the way of the dispensation of fair justice to all Americans? If a test was inadequate, faulty, or unknown at the time of a prisoner's conviction, he should have an absolute right to it in an attempt to conclusively prove his innocence or guilt. We are all better off whether it succeeds in proving his innocence or proves the finding at the trial was correct.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. There would be no set price for exoneration, this is pretensive at best and directly deceptive at the worst.

There is no basis in reality to pretending that every case has an equal possibility of exoneration, or even that most do, and to waste funds testing every piece of evidence in perpetuity using public funds for every single case.

This provides a natural incentive for the innocent, and pays them back if they are exonerated, while not taking the same possibility of testing from those who would implicate themselves, they just wouldn't be reimbursed, it removes the incentive to push for more testing if they know they would implicate themselves.
 
Bfgrn said:
Recent Cost Studies

* A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000).
(December 2003 Survey by the Kansas Legislative Post Audit)

* In Tennessee, death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.
(2004 Report from Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Office of Research)

* In Maryland death penalty cases cost 3 times more than non-death penalty cases, or $3 million for a single case.
(Urban Institute, The Cost of the Death Penalty in Maryland, March 2008)

* In California the current sytem costs $137 million per year; it would cost $11.5 million for a system without the death penalty.
(California Commission for the Fair Administration of Justice, July 2008)

The greatest costs associated with the death penalty occur prior to and during trial, not in post-conviction proceedings. Even if all post-conviction proceedings (appeals) were abolished, the death penalty would still be more expensive than alternative sentences.

* Trials in which the prosecutor is seeking a death sentence have two separate and distinct phases: conviction (guilt/innocence) and sentencing. Special motions and extra time for jury selection typically precede such trials.

* More investigative costs are generally incurred in capital cases, particularly by the prosecution.

* When death penalty trials result in a verdict less than death or are reversed, taxpayers first incur all the extra costs of capital pretrial and trial proceedings and must then also pay either for the cost of incarcerating the prisoner for life or the costs of a retrial (which often leads to a life sentence).

The death penalty diverts resources from genuine crime control measures. Spending money on the death penalty system means:

* Reducing the resources available for crime prevention, mental health treatment, education and rehabilitation, meaningful victims' services, and drug treatment programs.

* Diverting it from existing components of the criminal justice system, such as prosecutions of drug crimes, domestic violence, and child abuse.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost/page.do?id=1101084
Click to expand...

That was a nice collection of information; but does not refute my claim that executions are not that expenseive.

I also see that you had nothing to support your THEORY that innocents had been executed.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
That was a nice collection of information; but does not refute my claim that executions are not that expenseive.

I also see that you had nothing to support your THEORY that innocents had been executed.
Click to expand...

YES, it DOES...Let's look at California, they have done extensive studies...

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.

The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.

The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.

The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.

Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, June 30, 2008).


Let me ask you one question...HOW would you justify just ONE innocent person being put to death?

There is no way to tell how many of the over 1,000 people executed since 1976 may also have been innocent. Courts do not generally entertain claims of innocence when the defendant is dead. Defense attorneys move on to other cases where clients' lives can still be saved. Some cases with strong evidence of innocence include:

Carlos DeLuna Texas Conviction: 1983, Executed: 1989
Ruben Cantu Texas Convicted: 1985, Executed: 1993
Larry Griffin Missouri Conviction: 1981, Executed: 1995
Joseph O'Dell Virginia Conviction: 1986, Executed: 1997
David Spence Texas Conviction: 1984, Executed: 1997
Leo Jones Florida Convicted: 1981, Executed: 1998
Gary Graham Texas Convicted: 1981, Executed: 2000
Cameron Willingham Texas Convicted: 1992, Executed: 2004
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent
 
Bfgrn said:
YES, it DOES...Let's look at California, they have done extensive studies...

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.

The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.

The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.

The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.

Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, June 30, 2008).


Let me ask you one question...HOW would you justify just ONE innocent person being put to death?

There is no way to tell how many of the over 1,000 people executed since 1976 may also have been innocent. Courts do not generally entertain claims of innocence when the defendant is dead. Defense attorneys move on to other cases where clients' lives can still be saved. Some cases with strong evidence of innocence include:

Carlos DeLuna Texas Conviction: 1983, Executed: 1989
Ruben Cantu Texas Convicted: 1985, Executed: 1993
Larry Griffin Missouri Conviction: 1981, Executed: 1995
Joseph O'Dell Virginia Conviction: 1986, Executed: 1997
David Spence Texas Conviction: 1984, Executed: 1997
Leo Jones Florida Convicted: 1981, Executed: 1998
Gary Graham Texas Convicted: 1981, Executed: 2000
Cameron Willingham Texas Convicted: 1992, Executed: 2004
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent
Click to expand...

You seem to be a little confused in the wordage, so please allow me to help you.

Your information is about the cost of incarceration, while mine is about the execution itself.
Does that help clarify?? :)

Your other inclusion proved nothing to support your assertion that innocent people have been exectued; so unless you have nothiing else to present, you have nothing. :readit:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top